The existence of Hindu idol as juristic person capable of
having rights and discharging duties through sevakars were established in the
court of law as early as 1925.
Weird as it may sound, this very statement opens up a Pandora’s
box and you suddenly see a variety of questions sticking their head out.
Does it hold Hindu Idols simply a Human being?
Whether these judgments denigrate Hinduism and Hindu Idols?
Can the suits and claims be filed against Hindu Idols?
Can the individuals destroying the copies of mythology be
convicted for murder?
A number of judgments answer most of the queries. Before
discussing the judgment in detail, let me try to give you a concise view to understand them better.
As per Common law, which is the basis of Western law system,
also applied in India since the British time, there are two persons: Natural
and Legal. Natural persons are human beings, while Legal (juristic) persons are
any beings or things or objects that are treated as persons by law. For legal
purposes, they are given the similar treatment as that to the human beings.
The most apt or satisfactory definition of legal personality is
given by Salmond. According to him, legal personality is the capacity for
entering into legal relationships. On elaborating this, further a person would
be said to be in legal capacity if he can hold property in his name, sue and be
sued in the court of law.
Every judgment seems to eulogize Hinduism and its holy
scripture and there is hardly any derogatory remark towards them.
Punishment for murder cannot be awarded for destroying
scriptures because murder means killing of a human being by a human being.
Besides, Hindu Gods, being immortal, can neither be killed nor does they die.
Furthermore, the rationale behind giving Hindu idols a juristic
personality is best explained by Ganpathi Iyer in his valuable treatise on
“Hindu and Mahomedan Endowments”. He had
this to say in regard to the legal status of an idol in, Hindu law:
“The ascription of a legal personality to the deity supposed to be residing in the image meets with all, practical purposes. The deity can be said to possess property only in an ideal sense and the theory is, therefore, not complete unless that legal personality is linked to a natural person.”
This proposition became the key constituent in the famous
Allahabad High Court’s verdict in the Ayodhya case (link) given the eventual outcome of this
long-drawn dispute, it was Deoki Nandan Agarwal, whose efforts from 1989, when
he became the “next friend”, have in many ways clinched the issue in favor of
lord Ram and Ram Janmabhoomi.
Some historic Judgments:
●
Hindu Deity as a Juristic Person (Vidya Varuthi
Thirthia Swamigal v. Baluswami Ayyar AIR 1922)
●
Mosque and Sikh Scripture as Juristic Person(Shiromani
Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar v. Som Nath Dass and others delivered on
March 29, 2000)
These judgments outline the belief that nothing in Islam’s
religious structure can be “identified” to a form or a person. Not even the
Prophet Mohammad. So, the courts seem to have come to the conclusion that the
religious context does not warrant a Juristic Person argument in Islam. Sikh
theology and Hindu theology and religious strictures differ. Although, Guru
Nanak did affirm the centrality of Formless as the worshippable God, Guru
Gobind added a twist by installing Sri Guru Granth Sahib as a worshippable
Guru, as a true representative of God.
Furthermore, It would be correct to say that if we don’t give
idols a juristic personality then there would be lot of practical difficulties
in the matters of taxation and allotment of land as well as on the subject to
alienation of property.
In conclusion, from the various case laws and jurist writings,
it has become clear that an idol is treated as juristic person that is capable
of having rights and duties. The Idol has always enjoyed a good position in
Hindu Mythology. Hindu Law recognizes Hindu idol as a juridical subject being
capable in law of holding property by reason of the Hindu Shastras following
the status of a legal person in the same way as that of a natural person. It is
not a particular image, which is a juridical person, but it is a particular
bent of mind, which consecrates the image. The reasons behind personifying it
as a juristic person are many such as taxation purposes, assessment purposes,
representation in a suit to defeat illegal claims. “The Hindu Law, like the
Roman Law and those derived from it, recognizes not only incorporate bodies
with rights of property vested in the corporation apart from its individual
members but other juridical personality.
--
Nikhil Aggarwal